Editorial: Bumps in the road to casinos, medical marijuana

For more than a year, Massachusetts regulators have been trying to organize two industries that never existed here before: gambling casinos and medical marijuana dispensaries. That’s no easy task.

The Legislature paved the way for casino gambling, while voters mandated the legalization of medical marijuana. In both cases, the number of permits was limited. It fell to state officials – the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and the Department of Public Health – to establish a selection process and criteria for awarding the licenses.

Both processes are well underway, with final decisions expected this spring on awarding three casino licenses and as many as 35 permits to open marijuana dispensaries.

In both cases, the process has been far from flawless. The deadlines for making rules and decisions are ambitious, forcing the regulators to improvise, delay and react to situations not envisioned by lawmakers and referendum-petitioners. Both the chairman of the Gaming Commission and the DPH official overseeing the marijuana process have been hurt by conflict-of-interest charges involving friends or political allies.

The Gaming Commission has been fairly transparent, the DPH somewhat less so, but both have made their rules, standards and criteria available online. They have invited input from applicants and the public. They attracted a sufficient number of qualified applicants. For the most part, their processes for narrowing down applicants have worked as anticipated.

But gambling and marijuana are controversial, with significant opposition among voters, interest groups and political leaders. Opposition to specific proposals has been heated at the local level, especially on the casino licenses. Moreover, there’s a lot of money riding on the state’s decisions. Criticism of those running these permitting processes should be expected from political opponents, and litigation should be expected from those whose bids are rejected.

We’ve seen plenty of both. We’ve also seen companies with expertise and experience in these businesses jockey for position and adjust to new circumstances. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, both of which saw voters reject their initial casino bids, have teamed up with backers of casinos in other communities. Companies and consultants with experience in marijuana cultivation in other states have allied themselves with Massachusetts applicants.

Some marijuana applicants who finished out of the running as the DPH narrowed the field from around 100 companies to 20 eligible for provisional licenses have complained about the scoring system and the accuracy of claims made by other applicants. The DPH, now making a more thorough review of the contenders, can check out those complaints and may choose to revise its scores or the weight it gives their components.

Neither selection process is complete, but the complaints so far seem to us like bumps in the road, not reasons for changing course.